Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Higgins v. Carr Brothers Co.

• 1942 • 317 U.S. 572 • Stone Court
In the 1942 case Higgins v. Carr Brothers Co., the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over whether certain travel expenses could be considered part of an employee's regular rate of pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff, Higgins, was employed by Carr Brothers Company and argued that his time spent traveling to and from work sites should be included in his regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The defendant company disagreed, arguing that these were...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Stone Court
Term: 1942
Docket: 97
317 U.S. 572
63 S. Ct. 337
87 L. Ed. 468
1943 U.S. LEXIS 1208
Argued: Nov 19, 1942

Higgins v. Carr Brothers Co.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1942 case Higgins v. Carr Brothers Co., the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over whether certain travel expenses could be considered part of an employee's regular rate of pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff, Higgins, was employed by Carr Brothers Company and argued that his time spent traveling to and from work sites should be included in his regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The defendant company disagreed, arguing that these were not hours worked but rather commuting time which is typically excluded from such calculations. The court ruled in favor of Carr Brothers Co., determining that travel time does not constitute as working hours under FLSA unless it involves duties directly related to principal activities performed by employees at their job site or if it occurs during normal working hours.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Higgins v. Carr Brothers Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on an individual who had not actually received any income during the relevant period was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation of the law would lead to unjust results, as individuals could be taxed on money they never actually received or controlled. They also disagreed with the majority's assertion that there is no difference between "income" and "gross income," arguing instead that these are distinct concepts under tax law, and should be treated as such in order to ensure fairness and accuracy in taxation.

Opinion written by Justice WODouglas
Decided: Jan 18, 1943
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms